G'day all, hope you had a lovely weekend.

This one's going to be a short-of-length email. As a cricket reporter, I am kind of okay but as an amateur chef, I discovered this weekend, my technique leaves a bit to be desired. Can you believe that chopping tomatoes rendered me hors d'combat?

Anyways. Wanted to mention two things: one, thanks, manifold, for the enormous amount of feedback I got in response to Friday's email about the dilemma this diary finds itself in. The comments and suggestions have been uniformly helpful. We are still trying to collate them all in order to find an acceptable matrix -- over the coming days, you should see this email newsletter evolve and, hopefully, develop into something worth your while.

The other subject I wanted to touch on in this mail relates to a thought I had while re-reading some of the stories, and opinions, that have appeared in the media in regard to the match-fixing scandal, and the punishment meted out to the players.

The opinion seems to be split vertically between those who want all those condemned by the CBI and the BCCI to be jailed, or worse; and those who think the punishment has been a tad too severe.

Democracy at work, I suppose. But the really interesting aspect for me is what I hear about the heartburn within the BCCI itself about whether or no to impose any punishment at all. Apparently, the cause for the chill around the feet of the administrators relates to a fear that banned players might go to court, get a verdict in their favour, and really set the cat among the pigeons.

Consider this hypothetical scenario: Jadeja goes to court. The verdict is in his favour, and the court rules that he should be reinstated. The selectors get together to pick a squad for the next match. They decide to drop Jadeja on form. He immediately goes to court, arguing that his being dropped has nothing to do with cricketing grounds, that it is just the BCCI enforcing, de facto, a ban that did not stand up de jure, and demanding that the selection be stayed, and he be reinstated.

Legally, that is not as far-fetched as it sounds. If a player does go to court and the court does overturn the ban, then all hell can break lose.

It is a bit too late in the day now to plug this loophole -- but surely, it is time to think of the future, and ensure that you don't have a ridiculous situation wherein the board is unable to punish one of its cricketers for wrongdoing?

A solution needs to be found. The process begins with one simple question -- why is the board on a sticky wicket when it comes to prescribing punishment?

To my mind, the reason is that the cricketers are not employees of the board. The BCCI does not guarantee employment to the cricketers, the BCCI does not have them on its payroll. The situation that exists now is akin to contracted labour. Like, we hire a coolie to carry our bags, and pay him off, and there is no more contact between the two of us. We are under no obligation to ensure that the coolie is well-housed and properly clothed and fed. And neither is the coolie under any obligation to behave the way we want him to -- I might object to his getting drunk and staggering around the railway station, but I have no say in the matter.

Same difference. If a player is picked by the board, he plays the game, and is paid. End of story.

So where does the board get off, prescribing behaviour, laying down codes of conduct, and expecting adherence to its provisions? It may be wrong for players to consort with bookies -- but the trouble is, the board really has no legal right to insist that players desist from such contact, except during the hours of play.

The solution? Put national players on contract, as more and more teams are doing these days.

Look at the advantages:

1) The contracted player becomes the board's employee, and immediately, attains a certain level of security. At the same time, he also becomes responsible for results -- bad performance over a period of time can be punished, and good performance rewarded.

2) The board, by virtue of being the employer, can lay down norms, service conditions, which the player may not contravene, for fear of immediate dismissal. And there is no scope for going to court, either. For instance, within Rediff we have certain in-house rules. All employees have read the rules, and signed their acceptance, at the time of taking employment. If tomorrow, I break one of those rules, I can be summarily dismissed -- and there is no court in the country that can do anything about it either.

3) If you look at how our teams are being picked, you will see a bizarre situation. Ten or eleven players are permanent members, but the other three, four slots are used by the selectors as a means of doling out favours to various associations, and for meeting zonal quotas. Once you bring in a system of contracts, this ends -- the BCCI will then be paying monthly salaries to its contracted cricketers; it cannot, barring reasons of injury or ill health, look outside its employees to fill slots in the team, and therefore the board will be forced to pick the best possible talent, and more importantly, to stick with them.

Simplistic? Perhaps -- but then, I often think the simplest solutions are in fact the best ones.

I could be wrong, though -- which is why I am floating this idea as a sort of trial balloon here. Now let's hear from you -- what do you think, pro and con, about a system of contracted players?

Once we get all your views in, perhaps we can come up with a thoughtful column that looks at the question from all angles, instead of having just one person, to wit me, sounding off.

Cheers, all, have a great day

Prem

Mail Cricket Editor